netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: lock mtu in fnhe when received PMTU < net.ipv4.route.min

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20180312.122740.1516455994852523532.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:27:40 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     sd@...asysnail.net
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, sbrivio@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: lock mtu in fnhe when received PMTU <
 net.ipv4.route.min_pmtu

From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 17:05:28 +0100

> 2018-03-09, 16:06:19 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
>> Date: Fri,  9 Mar 2018 17:43:21 +0100
>> 
>> I think if you just choose an unused RTCF_* bit (f.e. 0x02000000) for
>> the state, you can use that because values propagate into the
>> rtable->rt_flags, and do not propagate out.  So you should be able to
>> use it in this way privately inside the kernel.
> 
> What about a bitfield?
> 
> -	u32			rt_pmtu;
> +	u32			rt_mtu_locked:1,
> +				rt_pmtu:31;

I guess that's fine.